non-4e D&D Players . . .

[Raven Crowking]

I prefer a system with Vancian casting, with a limited set of non-goofy races (and YMMV as to what qualifies as goofy), fast combat resolution, tactics that don't require a grid, a focus on meaningful exploration of a believable world, and design that leans strongly toward game-world logic determining the mechanics, rather than the mechanics determining what is described as occuring within the game world. I expect fast prep without having to use sofware or buy a subscription. And I strongly support the OGL.

When WotC puts out a game that does these things, I will take a look at it.

Essentials is not that game.


RC

 

[Umbran]

I think that many (most?) people are content with their game of choice right now (whether that be 4th Edition, Pathfinder, Labyrinth Lord or whatever) and it will take more than just the D&D brand name and nostalgia for the “Red Box” to get them to switch.

Historically, I don't think gamers as a whole sit tight on whatever they're playing. We are, largely, people who like to... fiddle with stuff. If the buy-in isn't huge (say, to start with, one book) I would expect there to be any number of folks who will pick it up just to see what the noise is about.

 

[Ulrick]

No.

Definitely not interested in 4.5e or whatever they "officially" want to call it.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Buy it. Nope.
Play it, I might. I gave 4E a go of it because my group wanted to play it.
It's not the flavor I like. Don't get me wrong I was a 4E hater from the beginning so playing it was a stretch for me. There were things I liked, but things I disliked as well.
So I don't see it joining my bookshelf.

I prefer a system with Vancian casting, with a limited set of non-goofy races (and YMMV as to what qualifies as goofy), fast combat resolution, tactics that don't require a grid, a focus on meaningful exploration of a believable world, and design that leans strongly toward game-world logic determining the mechanics, rather than the mechanics determining what is described as occuring within the game world. I expect fast prep without having to use sofware or buy a subscription. And I strongly support the OGL.

When WotC puts out a game that does these things, I will take a look at it.

Essentials is not that game.


RC

I actually liked both non & Vanician casting for mages/clerics. But I think they went too far away from the Vanician. I think there is a happy middle ground in there somewhere.
Like at a certain level, all cantrips/orisons are At-Wills with limited use (Vanician) for higher levels. This progression could be brought forwards more as they progress.

If you want to continue it I say we fork it over to another thread though to not derail this one.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I have only enough interest in D&D 4.5 to post in this thread, and then only because it directly addresses me (along with however many others).

The answer is no. If it had turned out that I just couldn't stand 3rd edition, some time ago, then edition 3.5 wouldn't have changed a thing, in that regard. Pretty sure about that.

Well, same applies here.

 

[DanFor]

The previews and the discussions have been interesting, yet disheartening.

According to what I’ve read in the previews, Essentials is aimed at new players as well as lapsed players. The whole concept seems too confusing for new players. How do they tell the difference between 4E and Essentials? Apparently, there isn’t supposed to be a difference. But, there are character classes with the same name that use different rules? And they can be played at the same table? For the lapsed players, like me, it seems that the designers are back-tracking on the character classes to make them more appealing to us. Why didn’t they do that to begin with? When 4E debuted, that particular concern didn’t seem to exist. To me, Essentials appears to be a desperate attempt to correct past mistakes. And based on the controversy on the community forums, the same mistakes are being made all over again (i.e. alienating fans/customers).

Regarding the community discussions--there have been a couple of things that have piqued my interest. First, the 4E Monster Manual I is basically obsolete--apparently. That just blows my mind. How can a core rulebook be obsolete? I’ve also read that there are no plans to reprint the core rulebooks because there is already a large supply of core rulebooks sitting on shelves somewhere. That makes me think that the core rulebooks aren’t selling well enough to warrant reprints. (Of course, if one of the core rulebooks has been rendered obsolete, I can see why.)

From my viewpoint, it seems that 4E has failed. Emphasis from the “everything-is-core” model has shifted to a new “10-essential-products” concept. Hardcover rulebooks are being replaced with box sets and paperbacks. If 4E was successful, why make so many changes? Essentials is an ill-conceived course correction, in my opinion.

No, I don’t plan to try 4.5…umm…Essentials. I’ll keep watching the previews and reading the discussions, though.

 

[rogueattorney]

Maybe. Probably not.

I'll be honest. When 4e first came out, I went to the game store, picked up the PHB and held it in my hand for about 2 seconds until the crashing realization hit me: I just didn't care. More than anything, it was the format. I plain and simple did not have any interest in buying yet another 3 volume, 600+ page, hard backed set of fantasy rpg rules that I was very unlikely to ever play. I've got enough of those already. I don't want mroe.

I came very close to grabbing the Keep on the Shadowfell module with the quick play rules and even borrowed a friend's copy for a little bit, but ultimately didn't feel the adventure was good enough or the quick play rules useful enough for me to make the purchase.

Although in a slightly different format, Pathfinder has the same problem for me. When that core book came out, one of the guys at the rpg store was trying to sell me on it while I had a copy of SJG's Space Munchkin rpg in my hand. Dude, it's just not my thing. If you can't get your rules across to me in about 120 pages, I'm really not all that interested.

So, here's the Essential boxed set that takes away the immediate hurdle you have to get across to grab my interest. The price is right. it's got doo-dads and gizmos included, and I'm a sucker for doo-dads and gizmos.

So, the next question is: What does this box set do that is better than the dozen or more rpgs I've already got sitting on my shelf? Will I actually play this game? Will my kids enjoy this more than the other games I've already introduced them to? If I'm going to get a new rpg, why get this one instead of, say, the Dragon Age rpg?

I'm not sold yet. I could be sold on it. But not yet. The D&D name on the box simply isn't enough for me, and hasn't been since about 1994.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Historically, I don't think gamers as a whole sit tight on whatever they're playing. We are, largely, people who like to... fiddle with stuff. If the buy-in isn't huge (say, to start with, one book) I would expect there to be any number of folks who will pick it up just to see what the noise is about.

The part of my response you quoted was in response to a specific question asked on WotC's message boards. Oh the troubles of copy and paste!

Or, is the attitude of this forum too little to late?

In my experience, reading that particular forum, I get the impression that many, if not most, of the posters there are content with their game of choice. And, at this point in time, are not looking to switch to a new system. I did not mean for that statement to apply to all gamers everywhere else.

Broadly, I do agree with your post - just not as it pertains to that particular forum at this point in time.

 

[Shazman]

The previews and the discussions have been interesting, yet disheartening.

According to what I’ve read in the previews, Essentials is aimed at new players as well as lapsed players. The whole concept seems too confusing for new players. How do they tell the difference between 4E and Essentials? Apparently, there isn’t supposed to be a difference. But, there are character classes with the same name that use different rules? And they can be played at the same table? For the lapsed players, like me, it seems that the designers are back-tracking on the character classes to make them more appealing to us. Why didn’t they do that to begin with? When 4E debuted, that particular concern didn’t seem to exist. To me, Essentials appears to be a desperate attempt to correct past mistakes. And based on the controversy on the community forums, the same mistakes are being made all over again (i.e. alienating fans/customers).

Regarding the community discussions--there have been a couple of things that have piqued my interest. First, the 4E Monster Manual I is basically obsolete--apparently. That just blows my mind. How can a core rulebook be obsolete? I’ve also read that there are no plans to reprint the core rulebooks because there is already a large supply of core rulebooks sitting on shelves somewhere. That makes me think that the core rulebooks aren’t selling well enough to warrant reprints. (Of course, if one of the core rulebooks has been rendered obsolete, I can see why.)

From my viewpoint, it seems that 4E has failed. Emphasis from the “everything-is-core” model has shifted to a new “10-essential-products” concept. Hardcover rulebooks are being replaced with box sets and paperbacks. If 4E was successful, why make so many changes? Essentials is an ill-conceived course correction, in my opinion.

No, I don’t plan to try 4.5…umm…Essentials. I’ll keep watching the previews and reading the discussions, though.

MM1 isn't the only core book that is outdated. All of the first three core books have been outdated for some time due to massive rules updates that occur at a dizzying pace. Unless Essentials somehow addresses the two biggest faults of 4E: 1)Excessive combat length due to a serious discrepancy between PC offensive capability and monster defenses 2) Extremely metagamey, gamist elements that are so silly they ruin suspension of disbelief, then it will not be my RPG of choice. I may play 4E/essentials if I have nothing else to play or am in a group where the majority wants to play it for some reason, but it will not be my top choice for my D&D fix. While the Essentials classes look like they are trying to go back to the feel of the classes from past editions, I don't think it will be enough of a change to bring people who have not gone with 4E a reason to come back. I also really don't see how Essentials isn't 4.5, when the class structure is completely different from 4E classes and the core 4E books will no longer be in print. How are they going to mix with other classes as a hybrid? The hybrid rules are already wonky for psionic classes with power points mixed with other classes. I suspect the Essentials classes will have the same problem.

 

[Uder]

Adding nostalgia names and callbacks aren't going to change the basic gameplay. No.

I'll keep an open mind when 5th rolls around.